|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
 Posted - 06/24/2005 : 21:59:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
To man who is in God's image God has granted some of this ability of volition, which for man is essentially (partial) freedom from strict causality. If a man ultimately chooses against God (and hence ultimate reality), his continued existence would represent disharmony and antagonism towards the universe's goal of perfection. Those qualified to judge ensure that such beings do not continue on to jeopardize the safety and progress of the universe.
Choosing against god is choosing against ultimate reality? That seems like you're saying god is ultimate reality. Actually there is no scientific evidence to indicate god is anything but an idea, a concept existing only in the minds of those who believe in god. That is by definition fantasy, pretty much the exact opposite of reality.
The universe has a goal of perfection? Can you point us to any evidence to show that there are actually goals possessed by the universe? And just who are those qualified to judge that certain beings should not jeopardize the safety and progress of the universe? What does it take to become so qualified? What constitutes safety of the universe, and what efforts might be taken to jeopardize that? Is there some universally accepted, or even commonly accepted notion regarding the "progress" of the universe? And how would an individual go about jeopardizing that?
It seems like you are essentially pulling everything you say out of your own fertile imagination. It sounds like you have some beliefs that you accept as real, based perhaps on some mythology, or stemming from some sort of religious indoctrination. It sounds like you accept a lot of things as facts, or truths, without using critical thinking, science, or logic as a base upon which to build your notions of that truth. Other than the tired old apology, "Because I just believe it, that's why," what gives any credence to any of the gibberish you wrote above? |
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2005 : 22:33:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Other than the tired old apology, "Because I just believe it, that's why," what gives any credence to any of the gibberish you wrote above?
Nothing, but I'm pretty sure he thinks skeptics would be happier if they adopted his fantasy as well. Or at least rejoiced in ignorance. Or something.
Oh, and he also wishes that "ideal" science concedes, every so often, that since humans are not omniscient, markie could be right about everything he says. Although these are really topics for other threads.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2005 : 10:34:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
[...] markie could be right about everything he says. Although these are really topics for other threads.
Yes, in fact I lost track of which thread I was reading and wavered from the "Discussing Biblical Contradictions" theme. Sorry 'bout that!
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2005 : 11:21:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
...and therefore must be smitten from reality with extreme prejudice. Is this in any religous text (because it defintely doesn't sound very judeo-christian) or, as was said, your personal opinion about how It works.
It's actually fairly christian, just different emphasis. For instance in the bible Jesus says something to the effect, "Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is heaven". He also says something like "be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect". What I reasonably infer from this and other places in the bible is that Jesus believed that there was a multitude of intelligent beings 'out there' who were quite proficient at doing what they perceived to be God's will. (Practically speaking, by God's will I mean the most excellent and virtuous thing one might conceive of.) Jesus' prayed that this attitude would come to the earth.
My opinion (as I suppose is anyone's) is based on what I have gleaned from life experience and reading, mostly the bible and another text.
Your phrase "smitten from reality with extreme prejudice" is interesting. I've also wondered why 'rebels' against established cosmic order wouldn't be given their space. One problem is that rebels are not content with being off in some corner somewhere, they want control. Still, rebels are given their time to come around - and some do - but this lattitude of mercy to the individual can come at a price to the larger cosmos. What I am saying is that there are other scenarios besides that of a sadistic or spoiled 'God' which may help explain why things aren't as ideal here as they could be.
But when potential has been exhausted for a being to come around, he is smitten from reality only after extreme patience and with just about perfect wisdom. In my informed(?) opinion of course.
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2005 : 11:39:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
I've said it before, but I'll repeat it again for markie...
If you are an omnipotent being, there is indeed atleast one thing you cannot do and remain omnipotent. Grant free will.
I see what you mean. Thankfully , due to man's limited biological form, he can do relatively little harm to the cosmos. Man must be tested in the early stages for realibility before graduating to higher and higher forms of greater influence and responsibility, 'potency'.
I believe that God has intended from the beginning to share his 'power' to truly cocreate an evolving universe with others. Does this diminish his omnipotence? Perhaps in a way, I suppose it depends on what level one is referring. Does any finite reality which is aportioned off from Infinity diminish that Infinity? The amateur mathematician in me would say no, but the picture is not that simple.
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2005 : 12:16:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Choosing against god is choosing against ultimate reality? That seems like you're saying god is ultimate reality.
By a usual definition of God, yes God would be ultimate reality. Of course if I am mistaken about the existence of God and space-time-energy is the ultimate reality then it's me buckin' against reality.
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
The universe has a goal of perfection? Can you point us to any evidence to show that there are actually goals possessed by the universe?
The evolution of life to the point where biological entities can contemplate perfection attainment, might be seen as evidence of such a goal. When I do a 'thought experiment' of imagining only a universe of conventionally understood matter-energy laws, it is bizarre beyond belief that we should even exist as we do. Imo, familiarity with the bizarre has given us the illusion that everything is about 'just as we would expect'.
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack And just who are those qualified to judge that certain beings should not jeopardize the safety and progress of the universe? What does it take to become so qualified? What constitutes safety of the universe, and what efforts might be taken to jeopardize that? Is there some universally accepted, or even commonly accepted notion regarding the "progress" of the universe? And how would an individual go about jeopardizing that?
Believe me I would like to delve into those questions but the story would be far too long. I know you don't buy into the story of Lucifer, but that would be an example of a being who has jeopardized the safety of the universe.
While I do believe these things to be more or less true, I accept the possibility that I am, at the very least, badly and sadly mistaken. If so, Jesus was mistaken as well, so I would consider myself in mistaken but good company. 
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2005 : 12:34:53 [Permalink]
|
Getting back to the topic of this thread, here's a notable 'contradiction'. The gospels record that Jesus went around preaching the good news of the Kingdom of Heaven, the Kingdom of God. Judging by, say, the parable of the prodigal son, that good news was that God desires the fellowship and rehabilitation of even the most disenfranchised. With God as heavenly Father, the the inference is that people are given the dignity of being His sons and daughters, in his image.
But by the time the 'gospel' gets through the lense of the apostle Paul, it is about "Christ crucified for sins". Yet the gospels are clear that Jesus' disciples had no concept that Jesus was to die until the very end. So obviously the gospel message Jesus was teaching the multitudes for several years was not about his death and resurrection. Yet the gospel Paul preached was clearly about belief in Jesus' death and resurrection for forgiveness of sins and righteousnes attainment. Two different gospels.
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2005 : 20:08:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
First, it should be noted that almost by definition God cannot be 'forced' to do anything. That would imply that there is a force to which God is subservient, and if that was so, God would not be God. No, rather God is subject to himself, ultimately his own volition.
I suppose, I dunno. But how does this observation relate to the current discusion?quote:
To man who is in God's image God has granted some of this ability of volition, which for man is essentially (partial) freedom from strict causality. If a man ultimately chooses against God (and hence ultimate reality), his continued existence would represent disharmony and antagonism towards the universe's goal of perfection. Those qualified to judge ensure that such beings do not continue on to jeopardize the safety and progress of the universe.
I suppose that some Christians believe this, and it's an interesting topic, but what does it have to do with Biblical contradictions?quote:
Mere intellectual uncertainty about God damns no one; rather it is indifference to God and further, antagonism towards his ways which puts man in peril. If man knew the constant work of God in his very own soul to spiritualize and uplift him, he would realize he is truly without excuse.
This seems like a subject that should have it's own thread. Perhaps you could start one and we could discuss it there.
quote:
Getting back to the topic of this thread, here's a notable 'contradiction'. The gospels record that Jesus went around preaching the good news of the Kingdom of Heaven, the Kingdom of God. Judging by, say, the parable of the prodigal son, that good news was that God desires the fellowship and rehabilitation of even the most disenfranchised. With God as heavenly Father, the the inference is that people are given the dignity of being His sons and daughters, in his image.
But by the time the 'gospel' gets through the lense of the apostle Paul, it is about "Christ crucified for sins". Yet the gospels are clear that Jesus' disciples had no concept that Jesus was to die until the very end. So obviously the gospel message Jesus was teaching the multitudes for several years was not about his death and resurrection. Yet the gospel Paul preached was clearly about belief in Jesus' death and resurrection for forgiveness of sins and righteousnes attainment. Two different gospels.
This is interesting. Perhaps you could provide Biblical and/or scholarly references to back up this contradiction. This way Hippy and the rest of us can examine the evidence firsthand to see if, in light of the agreed upon premises, we agree that it is indeed a contradiction. |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2005 : 13:34:44 [Permalink]
|
Humbert:
quote:
Why would god create people that are destined to spend eternity in hell?
I don't claim that He does, I think that He doesn't do that.
Matt:
quote:
If God is omnipotent then He is certainly capable of saving everyone. Since not everyone is saved this implies either that God is not fully omnipotent, or that He does not want everyone to be saved.
I wouldn't define "being saved" as simply "being sent to heaven". Some people on this earth are saved, and since they're not in heaven yet, "being saved" doesn't simply mean "being sent to heaven". Being saved is a state of relationship with the Father that we choose to be in or to reject. And if we reject this gift, then He might not offer it again.
quote:
One common explanation is that God does not want to interfere with 'free will'. If God forced everyone to believe in Him then belief would be meaningless.
I do believe in free will, and as I explained in another post, I don't think that the definition of 'omnipotent' should include paradoxes, such as free will beings who have no choice but to obey.
quote:
One problem with this explanation is this, suppose someone chooses the wrong religion or is not convinced that God exists. Is God then forced to send that person to hell?
The answer to this question is a matter of doctrine: I believe, through Scripture, that when Jesus returns he will glorify the righteous and destroy the wicked, but I think that there will still be other people left over who weren't particularly righteous or wicked. This people will be given a 'second chance' during the 1,000 year reign, as per Revelations.
quote:
Another problem with the free will explanation is that some Bible verses indicate that God does interfere with free will.
Sometimes He does, but, according to the examples I've seen in Scripture, not until after an individual has done a particularly self-damning thing, and gone beyond grace. I do not believe that Yahweh creates individuals with the intention to destroy those individuals.
As to your quoted verses:
Pr.16:4 "The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil."
I don't think this is saying that He created individuals to destroy them, but rather that people who become wicked and refuse to be used by Him to further His will on Earth, they are still His and He will use them in the end for the day of evil.
Jn.12:40 "He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them."
Rom.9:18 "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth."
2 Th.2:11-12 "God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned."
All these verses are talking about people who have already hardened their own heart. If we turn our back on Him even when He calls on us, eventually He may do the same to us.
Markie:
quote:
If so, that is better than what Paul taught. He clearly taught in Romans that God creates some people for destruction and some for glory.
I would dispute that, I could probably find verses in Romans relating to your position, but why don't you bring up the verses that you are specifically refferring to, and we can talk about them.
quote:
Getting back to the topic of this thread, here's a notable 'contradiction'. The gospels record that Jesus went around preaching the good news of the Kingdom of Heaven, the Kingdom of God. Judging by, say, the parable of the prodigal son, that good news was that God desires the fellowship and rehabilitation of even the most disenfranchised. With God as heavenly Father, the the inference is that people are given the dignity of being His sons and daughters, in his image.
But by the time the 'gospel' gets through the lense of the apostle Paul, it is about "Christ crucified for sins". Yet the gospels are clear that Jesus' disciples had no concept that Jesus was to die until the very end. So obviously the gospel message Jesus was teaching the multitudes for several years was not about his death and resurrection. Yet the gospel Paul preached was clearly about belief in Jesus' death and resurrection for forgiveness of sins and righteousnes attainment. Two different gospels.
The flaw in this 'contradiction' is that it assumes that the content of the Gospel message stopped before Christ's death. I think that the Gospel reached it's entirety when Jesus was taken back into heaven right after giving the Great Commission.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2005 : 00:17:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Humbert:
quote:
Why would god create people that are destined to spend eternity in hell?
I don't claim that He does, I think that He doesn't do that.
Do you believe then, that God was unsure whether or not any individuals would end up in hell when He created humanity?
quote:
Matt:
quote:
If God is omnipotent then He is certainly capable of saving everyone. Since not everyone is saved this implies either that God is not fully omnipotent, or that He does not want everyone to be saved.
I wouldn't define "being saved" as simply "being sent to heaven". Some people on this earth are saved, and since they're not in heaven yet, "being saved" doesn't simply mean "being sent to heaven". Being saved is a state of relationship with the Father that we choose to be in or to reject. And if we reject this gift, then He might not offer it again.
I don't see how your reply addresses my point. Let me see if I understand your logic.
Premises
1. God is omnipotent.
2. God doesn't want people go to hell.
3. Notwithstanding premise 2. God often/usually respects free will.
Conclusion
No one ever goes to hell unless they freely choose to go to hell.
If I've correctly represented your logic, then I guess hell must be virtually empty.
If it's not empty, then perhaps you could explain to me how it is that a great number of people (perhaps the majority?) freely choose to go to hell.quote:
I do believe in free will...
I don't, but that's for another thread.quote:
...and as I explained in another post, I don't think that the definition of 'omnipotent' should include paradoxes, such as free will beings who have no choice but to obey.
Alright.quote:
quote:
One problem with this explanation is this, suppose someone chooses the wrong religion or is not convinced that God exists. Is God then forced to send that person to hell?
The answer to this question is a matter of doctrine: I believe, through Scripture, that when Jesus returns he will glorify the righteous and destroy the wicked, but I think that there will still be other people left over who weren't particularly righteous or wicked. This people will be given a 'second chance' during the 1,000 year reign, as per Revelations.
Okay, but I feel like you're dodging the question.quote:
I do not believe that Yahweh creates individuals with the intention to destroy those individuals.
Then why are some individuals destroyed? Are you saying that some individuals freely choose to be destroyed?quote:
As to your quoted verses:
They're the same ones you quoted from the SAB.quote:
Pr.16:4 "The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil."
I don't think this is saying that He created individuals to destroy them, but rather that people who become wicked and refuse to be used by Him to further His will on Earth, they are still His and He will use them in the end for the day of evil.
Your interpretation is substantially different from the literal meaning of the verse. I'd appreciate it if you would provide evidence that your interpretation, and not the literal interpretation, is the correct one.quote:
Jn.12:40 "He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them."
Rom.9:18 "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth."
2 Th.2:11-12 "God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned."
All these verses are talking about people who have already hardened their own heart. If we turn our back on Him even when He calls on us, eventually He may do the same to us.
If they had already hardened their own hearts then why was it nesseccary for God to harden their hearts? That makes no sense to me. If they were already self-deluded then why did God need to send them a 'strong delusion' to cause them to 'believe a lie' in order to justify damming them? |
| Edited by - dv82matt on 06/29/2005 00:33:36 |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2005 : 11:57:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie: If so, that is better than what Paul taught. He clearly taught in Romans that God creates some people for destruction and some for glory. quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ I would dispute that, I could probably find verses in Romans relating to your position, but why don't you bring up the verses that you are specifically refferring to, and we can talk about them.
I'm thinking specifically of Romans 9:11-23 (NAB)
quote:
for though {the twins} were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad, in order that God's purpose according to {His} choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls,
it was said to her, "The older will serve the younger."
Just as it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
So then it {does} not {depend} on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth." So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?
Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use, and another for common use?
What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And {He did so} in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory...
The clear implication is that God *beforehand*, before anyone does anything good or bad, determines who will be a 'vessel' of 'honour' (for glory) or 'dishonour' (for destruction). And the implication is that no one can resist God's chosing and will in this matter.
Although I believe Paul had some excellent things to say, this is not one of them imo.
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ: The flaw in this 'contradiction' is that it assumes that the content of the Gospel message stopped before Christ's death. I think that the Gospel reached it's entirety when Jesus was taken back into heaven right after giving the Great Commission.
In the Great Commission Jesus did remind them of the teaching of repentance for forgiveness of sins, but he didn't talk about the efficacy of his death and resurrection to procure that forgiveness from a God otherwise unable to forgive. The gospel which Jesus taught throughout his life assumed a God who would *naturally* forgive and gladly welcome back his own son or daughter.
|
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2005 : 14:58:01 [Permalink]
|
Matt:
quote:
Do you believe then, that God was unsure whether or not any individuals would end up in hell when He created humanity?
Yes.
quote:
Premises
1. God is omnipotent.
2. God doesn't want people go to hell.
3. Notwithstanding premise 2. God often/usually respects free will.
Conclusion
No one ever goes to hell unless they freely choose to go to hell.
It might make more sense to you if you reword premise 2 as "God wants people to accept Him, and those who reject Him are sent to hell." Hence, the new conclusion would be "No one ever goes to hell unless they freely choose to reject God."
quote:
One problem with this explanation is this, suppose someone chooses the wrong religion or is not convinced that God exists. Is God then forced to send that person to hell?
The answer in short is 'no'.
quote:
Then why are some individuals destroyed? Are you saying that some individuals freely choose to be destroyed?
Yes. Spiritual suicide is much more common than physical suicide. One of my brothers believes the Bible just as much as I do, but he still doesn't follow Jesus. And he knows that this will destroy him in the end if he doesn't change; it is a source of grief in our family. Also, when you think about alcoholics, AIDS, war, you will begin to see that much of humanity freely chooses to be destroyed, mainly because they ignore the consequences of their actions.
quote:
Pr.16:4 "The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil."
Your interpretation is substantially different from the literal meaning of the verse.
This verse literally says that 'Yahweh made the wicked'. But does it say that He created individuals who had no choice but to be wicked, or that he created those who are now wicked individuals? It doesn't say either, probably because that's not the main idea in this passage. Because it doesn't say either, it is up to interpretation to determine which meaning should be attached to those words. And hence, this verse cannot be used as an authority for either position.
quote:
Jn.12:40 "He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them."
Rom.9:18 "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth."
2 Th.2:11-12 "God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned."
If they had already hardened their own hearts then why was it nesseccary for God to harden their hearts?
The Bible doesn't say that it is nesseccary. Yahweh has His reasons for doing what He does, sometimes he tells us what they are like here:
Romans 11:30-31For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
Markie:
I have two disagreements with the translation you provided:
Where the NAB says "Just as it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated", the KJV simply says "As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated". I think that this is a parenthetical statement meant merely to identify those involved, and not meant to say Esau was hated before he had done evil. Two reasons: 1) Esau and Jacob had not yet been named in the passage; 2) The passage Paul quoted was Malachi 1:2-3, and neither it, nor any other passage I can find, states that Yahweh hated Esau before he had done evil. This passage states that what was decided before Jacob and Esau had done evil was who would serve who.
Where the NAB says "What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And {He did so} in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory",
the KJV says "[What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,".
In this case "fitted" and "prepared" are different words in the Greek. The NAB translation tries to say that people were created destined for hell by connecting the statement "he had afore prepared unto glory" with the previous statement of the vessels "prepared for destruction". But the statement "endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction" does not neccessarily imply that they were pre-made for destruction; neither does this verse indicate that it was Yahweh who fitted them for destruction.
And neither does this passage say that Yahweh created people with no choice but to be good. I believe that He prepared everyone to be vessels of mercy, but most of us didn't stick to that plan.
Furthermore, Paul often mentions man's will:
Rom 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but [how] to perform that which is good I find not.
1Cr 7:37 Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.
1Cr 9:17 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation [of the gospel] is committed unto me.
Tts 3:8 [This is] a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works.
quote:
So obviously the gospel message Jesus was teaching the multitudes for several years was not about his death and resurrection. Yet the gospel Paul preached was clearly about belief in Jesus' death and resurrection for forgiveness of sins and righteousnes attainment. Two different gospels.
Jhn 14:26 But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
So actually, truth was being given even after the Ascension.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2005 : 16:30:00 [Permalink]
|
This one thing has changed my opinion of you, Hippy:quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Also, when you think about alcoholics, AIDS, war, you will begin to see that much of humanity freely chooses to be destroyed, mainly because they ignore the consequences of their actions.
The idea that the things you used as examples are avoidable simply through paying attention to possible consequences is... to be blunt... stupid. It's so blindingly dumb that I'm left speechless. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2005 : 18:47:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Matt:quote:
Do you believe then, that God was unsure whether or not any individuals would end up in hell when He created humanity?
Yes.
Of course this means either that God is unable to trancend time, or that He chooses to remain in ignorance of the consequenses of His actions.quote:
quote:
Premises
1. God is omnipotent.
2. God doesn't want people go to hell.
3. Notwithstanding premise 2. God often/usually respects free will.
Conclusion
No one ever goes to hell unless they freely choose to go to hell.
It might make more sense to you if you reword premise 2 as "God wants people to accept Him, and those who reject Him are sent to hell." Hence, the new conclusion would be "No one ever goes to hell unless they freely choose to reject God."
Yes, if you remove the premise that, "God doesn't want people to go to hell." and replace it with, "No one ever goes to hell unless they freely choose to reject God." you can arrive at a conclusion that is in line with what you believe.
To be clear then, the statement, "God doesn't want people to go to hell." is false, but the statement, "God doesn't want people to go to hell, unless they reject Him." is true.
Are we in agreement?quote:
quote:
One problem with this explanation is this, suppose someone chooses the wrong religion or is not convinced that God exists. Is God then forced to send that person to hell?
The answer in short is 'no'.
Then He must want to send them to hell.quote:
quote:
Then why are some individuals destroyed? Are you saying that some individuals freely choose to be destroyed?
Yes. Spiritual suicide is much more common than physical suicide. One of my brothers believes the Bible just as much as I do, but he still doesn't follow Jesus. And he knows that this will destroy him in the end if he doesn't change; it is a source of grief in our family.
Perhaps this is an example of spiritual suicide. Obviously I don't know your brother, but maybe he doesn't truly believe the Bible in the same way you do.quote:
Also, when you think about alcoholics, AIDS, war, you will begin to see that much of humanity freely chooses to be destroyed, mainly because they ignore the consequences of their actions.
I don't agree that these are examples of spiritual or physical suicide. The primary purpose of these activities is not self-destruction.
quote:
quote:
Pr.16:4 "The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil."
Your interpretation is substantially different from the literal meaning of the verse.
This verse literally says that 'Yahweh made the wicked'.
I would add, "for the day of evil."quote:
But does it say that He created individuals who had no choice but to be wicked...
No.quote:
...or that he created those who are now wicked individuals?
Yes.quote:
It doesn't say either, probably because that's not the main idea in this passage.
To me the gist of the passage is that, God made everything for His own purposes, even the wicked, who He created for destruction.quote:
quote:
Jn.12:40 "He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them."
Rom.9:18 "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth."
2 Th.2:11-12 "God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned."
If they had already hardened their own hearts then why was it nesseccary for God to harden their hearts?
The Bible doesn't say that it is nesseccary.
The point is that the passage doesn't make sense unless it is nesseccary, and it is only nesseccary to harden their hearts if their hearts aren't hardened already. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2005 : 21:23:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Of course this means either that God is unable to trancend time, or that He chooses to remain in ignorance of the consequenses of His actions.
In either of those situations, god isn't omnipotent. And, as I have said before, if god isn't omnipotent it is just another being with some degree of power less than all. In a nut shell.... different from you or I in power only. Not really a "god" then.
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Also, when you think about alcoholics, AIDS, war, you will begin to see that much of humanity freely chooses to be destroyed, mainly because they ignore the consequences of their actions.
I cannot comprehend the callousness of a person who truly believes such as that. You have just moved yourself in firmly with the ignorant hate-filled bigots that make up most of christianity in the US these days.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
